Topband: 160

Sat Aug 3 00:12:34 EDT 2019

Good Evening/Morning All,

A technically incorrect statement was made, the statement began with:
"FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. ..." and then things went sour.

In less than 60 seconds a Google search provided evidence, that indeed
such automated technical ability has actually existed for some time now.

Perhaps such use was not intended by the software authors, however the 
reality is that the new mode has been automated, and there it gets messy. 

This "hobby" is/was based on a high technical content. As the topic is
being discussed here, should the information not be accurate and truthful?

Instead, this week we have seen posts with a non-technical attitude of
emotions, options, and "if you don't like it, tough, move on" expressed. 

K4SAV also once again presented interesting information as to have we
in our haste to adopt this mode, really verified it is all it promises?

What was offered as an alternative, not requiring a large station, is that
statement really true once we add the stronger stations into the pileups?

The proposed new mode contest, and mini-contests in the next few weeks may 
help to provide answers to questions, such as will the 'robots' stand out?

How will we know, and if caught, then what? Design smarter 'robots'?

Is this really AI (Artificial Intelligence) now entering the "human hobby"?

Is this all good, some good, some bad, all bad? Can this be managed?

I can see both good and bad so far, as it is a very interesting challenge
when we attempt to merge all of the technology differences into one bucket.

Is that really the right or the only possible solution here to consider?

Straw arguments are one thing, I provided evidence the technical ability
for automation is already in place. Interesting no one wanted to admit
that earlier as another post (but no source for verification) suggested that 
this practice in already being used by some possibly on this very forum?

Is that true or false? I do not know. Other similar statements of the straw
man argument have been offered, is that data true? Again I do not know.

Other questions ... and I have many more questions than answers at this point
so don't put me in either the "for" or "against" pile. What is true/accurate?

If a DXpedition chooses to not operate SSTV, but my passion is on SSTV, then
has my enjoyment of the hobby has been 'gutted' (to use my word) or limited?

If a station chooses to not operate CW (or insert your favorite mode here) in
the evenings, and only operates on (insert a less favorite mode) here, then?

Is FT8 just a fad, or is it a game changer? Are there measurable and positive
benefits that out way some  of the known and unknown concerns known today?

Is there more going on here other than a mode change from 'spark' to now this?

Are the bands really open more ... do folks now believe that only via a new mode
will result in working DX? Perhaps next time ask a station to QSY to CW and see?

(I did not mention SSB, as technically there is a ~10db loss over CW overall).

Given the current status of the DXCC/other awards as to integrity, will FT8
add value to strengthen the programs or lead to a lower level of value???

BTW, the idea "good op lists" and "bad op lists" won't work. How would one
prevent someone from intentionally using someone else's callsign and being a
lid with the goal of having that station placed on the "bad op list". 

Other mode memory technology still requires some form of human involvement
today, it's not necessarily as automated as this new mode is at present. 

I have my own list of concerns on this change, some are positive some are not,
but I am using an engineering department mantra, perhaps you have heard of it?

"Trust, but verify"

If the technical content of our hobby is going to remain in place and at a high
standard, then we need to look past the subjective opinions and together closely
look at all of the data, not just what might support one view and not others.

Other modes at some level of technically ability have the same "auto" potential,
not perhaps practical today, but could be tomorrow. And that's only 24 hours away.

I remember as a young teenage ham, reading an article in a CQ magazine telling the
story of two hams who had not seen each other in some time paths crossing, and one
ham asked the other to stop by his station and they would chat. The story continues
with the meeting taking place there and it goes roughly something like this ... 

They walk into the "shack" area, which looks like a lobby.

The visiting ham asks, "Why is there a secretary? And I don't see any gear?"

The reply is something like, "Oh, she does the QSLs and manages the records,
all the gear, and it's noise and heat is in another room with the computers."

IIRC the secretary mentions something to the main op about the band conditions.

The visiting ham asks, "But who is running the station, and turning all those
big antennas I saw when I drove here today, and deciding who/what to work?"

The reply is something like, "Oh, there is no need to do that today, as we have
our computers and everything is automated, no need to do all the hard work now."

"No more losing sleep, tower work, no more worry about missing the DX, and so on .."

The story comes to a quick conclusion ... and while I can't recall exactly what
the closing text of the article was at this moment, I do suspect similar thoughts 
are going thru the minds of many on this forum as to what that visiting ham thought 
as he drove away.

If the new mode is going to succeed and add long term value, great, let us be careful.
If the new mode is going to damage* and destroy* over time, let us be even more careful.

(By damage* and destroy* I mean the damage the hobby and destroy personal relationships).

Have a great weekend,

Billy, AA4NU

> On August 2, 2019 at 6:57 PM Cecil <chacuff at cableone.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> And I disagree with your declaration that Gary was incorrect. His position, and mine are based on the original intent and design of the software writers...not how some are modifying and misusing the software. The awards system is also based on the original intent and design of the software.
> 
> You manually start a CQ sequence that can run unanswered for 15 minutes...but if answered and “answer first” is selected an auto sequence of trading signal reports ensues until the QSO is successfully completed or fails at which time the process stops until the operator starts the process again. It won’t start again on its own unless the operator starts it.
> 
> If it functions any differently it’s either been modified or is being manipulated by a macro...neither of which was part of the software writers intent or design...period!
> 
> Do I doubt the software has been modified to function unattended...no not at all. I think two examples have been presented.
> 
> Is that grounds for exempting FT8 contacts from the awards systems for all operators...no.  It’s not the solution. Same could be done with any of the digital modes and probably has been.
> 
> I really think at this point for many, any excuse to exempt FT8 is a good excuse...and if that’s where we are that’s a whole different set of problems...
> 
> Cecil
> K5DL
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> > On Aug 2, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Billy Cox <aa4nu at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> > No Mike, the reality is Gary was incorrect and there is no need to
> > go negative toward others who disagree as done in recent posts. 
> > 
> > Read the details Mike, watch the video ... it's AUTOMATED. It's not
> > cheating (per say) or is it? That's another interesting thought ...
> > 
> > No need to wave your hands and create straw argument again on this.
> > 
> > This is not about just another mode ... this is about changing the
> > face of the hobby, and 'gutting' what others may still enjoy.
> > 
> > So, now that the reality is the mode can and is being automated,
> > what is the next step? As to the ARRL ban ... oh, yea that will work.
> > 
> > (And yes Tree and a few others experimented with this years ago on CW)
> > 
> > Billy, AA4NU
> > 
> >> On August 2, 2019 at 6:10 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> So does this mean that everyone uses this cheat?  No.
> >> 
> >> By the way the ARRL has banned automatic unattended contacts from their 
> >> programs at the last board meeting.   This means that the operator must 
> >> be instigating the contacts.
> >> 
> >> Curiously many many many years ago, a fellow by the call of N6TR created 
> >> a "robot" that made Sweepstakes contacts.  It was not very clever but it 
> >> was done.
> >> 
> >> The only reason you can walk away with the stock program is that once 
> >> the qso starts the remaining sequences are indeed automated. So you can 
> >> walk away for about 30 seconds.  I am pretty certain that this could 
> >> also be done with RTTY if it hasn't been already.
> >> 
> >> So how many people are fully automated?  10, 100? 1000?    How many 
> >> people uses power over their licensing?  10, 100, 1000?  Both get you 
> >> booted from ARRL programs.  Why is one ok and the other is not?  Just 
> >> curious.
> >> 
> >> What percent of ARRL participants are doing it right?  Nearly everyone 
> >> other than the few outliers.  If we can get a list of these automated 
> >> callsigns we could easily create a black list and not work them.
> >> 
> >> I am appalled that people would attempt to strong arm DX peditions from 
> >> using a completely legal mode that nets more contacts.  Amazing sick!
> >> 
> >> W0MU
> >> 
> >>> On 8/2/2019 4:55 PM, Billy Cox wrote:
> >>> Good Afternoon All,
> >>> 
> >>> Gary, then explain this please?
> >>> 
> >>> From http://edtk.de/
> >>> 
> >>> Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are logged automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again.   - Run mode should always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq"
> >>> 
> >>> Or this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> 
> >>> Billy, AA4NU
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband <topband at contesting.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to initiate contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening in case of sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes were intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended operation. PLEASE,   know of what you speak instead of parroting what ignorant cynics tell you.  They have no life and nothing better to do than bitch and whine and moan about things they haven't taken time to understand. Do not believe everything you are told. You will be made to look as foolish as the cynics as you enable them and propagate their rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 997 and FISTS #3951 amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I know the JT packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so (urban legend?). Get a life!
> >>>> 
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Gary, K7EK
> >>>> 
> >>>> ⁣Sent from BlueMail 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, Cecil <chacuff at cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger <awswinger at earthlink.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> . Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and
> >>>>> come back after some other activity and see how many new countries and
> >>>>> QSOs that the computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where
> >>>>> operators must remain engaged to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that
> >>>>> such Computer-generated contacts should have a separate category in the
> >>>>> current award systems since the operators are not directly involved in
> >>>>> making the QSOs . . . call it Computer-Aided Digital or something more
> >>>>> clever. No argument that skill is required to set up a station to make
> >>>>> FT-8 contacts, but a different set than what those of us who work DXCC,
> >>>>> Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, including those towers,
> >>>>> expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work to get the new ones
> >>>>> when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes!
> >>>>>> So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor
> >>>>> do I cast aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though
> >>>>> I am unlikely to join their ranks, but the Ham community should not
> >>>>> penalize those of us who used non-FT modes to get our hard earned
> >>>>> awards by giving an unfair advantage to a new technology. We (Ham
> >>>>> Radio) need the New Technology, but these modes are sufficiently
> >>>>> different in many ways from the older modes that justifies a separate
> >>>>> category in the award spectrum.  Therefore, I urge the ARRL and the CQ
> >>>>> Magazine leadership to establish a Digital award category that is
> >>>>> separate and different from the current DXCC et al Digital criteria.
> >>>>>> Alan Swinger K9MBQ
> >>>>>> Charlottesville, VA
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: rich_k7zv at gphilltop.com
> >>>>>>> Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM
> >>>>>>> To: Harald Rester <harryrester at gmx.de>
> >>>>>>> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Topband: 160
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, SSB,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not
> >>>>> supplant
> >>>>>>> it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come along
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>>> the future or will something else take its place? Who knows... time
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of the Millennials
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon be making.
> >>>>>>> Let's set a good example for them to follow.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Rich K7ZV
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while
> >>>>> staring
> >>>>>>>> at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe
> >>>>> CU!
> >>>>>>>> Harry, DH1NBE
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Am 02.08.2019 um 21:26 schrieb uy0zg:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> I do not propose stopping the FT8.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> just compete with each other.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> But keep in mind - Arnold will be the first  -)):
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>> https://www.alamy.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-terminator-2-judgment-day-1991-image66516208.html
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>> Nick, UY0ZG
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.topband.in.ua
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ah so all FT8 users are cheaters.  Does that mean that all
> >>>>> Russian
> >>>>>>>>>> hams use way more power than they should and their scores should
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> count either?
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> The real issue here is change.  Ham radio has been in constant
> >>>>> motion
> >>>>>>>>>> and change since it started and I hope in continues that way well
> >>>>>>>>>> after we are dead.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> So we better stop FT8 and protect VE1ZZ?
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry no.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Good day.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/2/2019 12:45 PM, uy0zg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Mike
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is how the world works so that humanity always has moral
> >>>>>>>>>>> values.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> They must be protected.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Example:
> >>>>>>>>>>> in a few years, 334 VE1ZZ countries will lose their value. His
> >>>>>>>>>>> achievements will be eaten by computer programs and robots ....
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is right ?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Will there be many talents at 160 meters like Jack?
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Will not be !
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary - more and more stupidity and envy....
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nick, UY0ZG
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.topband.in.ua
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 18:24:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheating is cheating.  How many people used remote stations,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exceeded
> >>>>>>>>>>>> their power limits, etc.   Singling out a mode because you are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> upset
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that it has taken away activity in your  preferred mode is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> helpful
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to the hobby.    Not everyone that use FT8 cheats.  Not
> >>>>> everyone
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> uses a amp that exceeds their legal limit uses it in that
> >>>>> fashion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How can you guarantee that everyone on the "Honor Role" was 100
> >>>>>>>>>>>> percent honorable or even anyone that got DXCC did it right?
> >>>>> You
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can't so please stop singling out a mode you don't care for.
> >>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it.  Move on.  It is here.  Just like the Reverse beacon,
> >>>>> packet
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cluster, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We are all hams enjoying many aspects of the hobby.  Can't we
> >>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>> along?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> W0MU
> >>>>>>>>>>> _________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband -
> >>>>> Topband
> >>>>>>>>>>> Reflector
> >>>>>>>>>> _________________
> >>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> >>>>>>>>>> Reflector
> >>>>>>>>> _________________
> >>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> >>>>>>>>> Reflector
> >>>>>>>> _________________
> >>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> >>>>>>>> Reflector
> >>>>>>> _________________
> >>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> >>>>> Reflector
> >>>>>> _________________
> >>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> >>>>> Reflector
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> _________________
> >>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> >>>>> Reflector
> >>>> _________________
> >>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> >>> _________________
> >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> >> 
> >> _________________
> >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> > _________________
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>